5 ms·

Thanks for the info. Definitely something we have not run into or considered yet. I guess we just naively assumed that all police precincts were as scrupulous a

Thanks for the info. Definitely something we have not run into or considered yet. I guess we just naively assumed that all police precincts were as scrupulous as those we talked to :(. There is some stuff we can do, however. For instance, we can directly build the QC schedule into the device so it does not work unless you get it calibrated. We can also have QC cartridges that have a barcode that the device reads to make sure you actually ran a calibration check properly and the device passed. We were so focused on internal methods for making the device accurate, but maybe we should put some thought into how we can make sure the police use it properly.

michaelmrose 7y ago
Everyone says they are ethical including the unethical I'm not sure how you possibly took this at face value.
neuralzen 7y ago
Really, if you're producing something that is reliably accurate, I would expect that would be all anyone would expect, along with proper training, verified updates, and audited software/firmware, etc. In the case I cited above it was more an issue with the lack of accuracy of the product, and sloppy follow through from the vendor, with money and political pressure thrown at the problem - something which the police departments themselves likely have less influence on anyway.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
maybe we should put some thought into how we can make sure the police use it properly. This times a million. Do not just make the device accurate, make sure it is very hard for a motivated individual to trick it into being inaccurate, in either direction. Please excuse the terminology, was learned from very elderly engineers, but above foolproof (stupidity), there is twatproof (deliberate misuse) and cuntproof (educated malice). Fully cuntproofing is very hard, but any device like this should be at least fully twatproofed, with at least some attempt at cuntproofing.
- undoware 7y ago
  reading HN as a woman is an exercise in managing fury
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    My apologies if I have caused offense. I have angered you here and this wasn't my intention. One thing I will say is that the prefixes I gave are in general use as descriptive epithets by both men and women across much of the English speaking world, along with many others decribing the male genitalia, with much greater frequency than you will find on here. Personally, I'm with Alice Fraser on this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gioul9PW9B0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gioul9PW9B0 - but will cheerfully adapt the taxonomy in future, if I can find better words to use for the prefixes. Any ideas?
    - mkl 7y ago
      Why not just say what you mean? The prefixes you used are incomprehensible without the parentheticals following them ("(deliberate misuse)" etc.), so why not just use those? I'm not convinced it breaks down into three clean categories anyway.
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        >The prefixes you used are incomprehensible without the parentheticals following them I disagree. In the taxonomy of these things, being a twat is more impulsive misbehaviour, while being a cunt involves malicious aforethought and intent. There is a fairly clear meaning from that general usage. >I'm not convinced it breaks down into three clean categories anyway. I agree, but I didn't make it up and people tend to use the rule of three for stuff like this. I suppose a category of dickproof could be added between foolproof and twatproof, but I think it already has a lot of overlap with foolproof.
jjulius 7y ago
>I guess we just naively assumed that all police precincts were as scrupulous as those we talked to :(. Bless your heart.
Daniel3 7y ago
If your product is at all worthwhile, it will constantly be tossed back and forth between lawyers, trying to uphold or disprove its validity. ("Well here's an independent study done on how arresting officers with shaky hands get inconsistent results when administering the SannTek Cannibus test" et al et al ad nauseum) While yes, this is a problem in any society that applies capitalism principles to the practice of law.... I don't think there's necessarily a better system, sadly. Don't feel responsible to fix it all yourself. Anyway, pursue the technology as well as possible, by all means work in as many checks and balances as possible for correct use, and constant calibration, BUT ALSO talk and document openly during your design phase and testing the ideology you develop to govern false positives versus false negatives. This is an extremely engaging technology ethics discussion. If you drive the error to be false negatives, at a rate of 5%, will you not be able to sell it, because your customer is most interested in an effective tool? What is the societal benefit of getting this device to be accepted and used by the police? If you can achieve FN=4% is it worth it, or is the societal benefit actually much higher, possibly at FN =20%. Can you just run the test 5 times in a row, or with 2 stand alone devices to reach the dependability rate you desire? If you drive the error to be false positives, at a rate of 1%, can you sleep at night with the lives your product will effect, or do you need a fall back like your device determining with 100% accuracy that cannibus is present in someone's system (just not a definitive, exact amount), PLUS a statement from an arresting officer stating erratic or dangerous driving or behavior in conjunction with your device's input. I'm very excited about what you're doing. I didn't know (still not yet convinced) that the science is solvent, but I've been asking about this device for years.

michaelmrose 7y ago

Everyone says they are ethical including the unethical I'm not sure how you possibly took this at face value.

neuralzen 7y ago

Really, if you're producing something that is reliably accurate, I would expect that would be all anyone would expect, along with proper training, verified updates, and audited software/firmware, etc. In the case I cited above it was more an issue with the lack of accuracy of the product, and sloppy follow through from the vendor, with money and political pressure thrown at the problem - something which the police departments themselves likely have less influence on anyway.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

maybe we should put some thought into how we can make sure the police use it properly. This times a million. Do not just make the device accurate, make sure it is very hard for a motivated individual to trick it into being inaccurate, in either direction. Please excuse the terminology, was learned from very elderly engineers, but above foolproof (stupidity), there is twatproof (deliberate misuse) and cuntproof (educated malice). Fully cuntproofing is very hard, but any device like this should be at least fully twatproofed, with at least some attempt at cuntproofing.

undoware 7y ago
reading HN as a woman is an exercise in managing fury
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  My apologies if I have caused offense. I have angered you here and this wasn't my intention. One thing I will say is that the prefixes I gave are in general use as descriptive epithets by both men and women across much of the English speaking world, along with many others decribing the male genitalia, with much greater frequency than you will find on here. Personally, I'm with Alice Fraser on this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gioul9PW9B0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gioul9PW9B0 - but will cheerfully adapt the taxonomy in future, if I can find better words to use for the prefixes. Any ideas?
  - mkl 7y ago
    Why not just say what you mean? The prefixes you used are incomprehensible without the parentheticals following them ("(deliberate misuse)" etc.), so why not just use those? I'm not convinced it breaks down into three clean categories anyway.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      >The prefixes you used are incomprehensible without the parentheticals following them I disagree. In the taxonomy of these things, being a twat is more impulsive misbehaviour, while being a cunt involves malicious aforethought and intent. There is a fairly clear meaning from that general usage. >I'm not convinced it breaks down into three clean categories anyway. I agree, but I didn't make it up and people tend to use the rule of three for stuff like this. I suppose a category of dickproof could be added between foolproof and twatproof, but I think it already has a lot of overlap with foolproof.

jjulius 7y ago

>I guess we just naively assumed that all police precincts were as scrupulous as those we talked to :(. Bless your heart.

Daniel3 7y ago

If your product is at all worthwhile, it will constantly be tossed back and forth between lawyers, trying to uphold or disprove its validity. ("Well here's an independent study done on how arresting officers with shaky hands get inconsistent results when administering the SannTek Cannibus test" et al et al ad nauseum) While yes, this is a problem in any society that applies capitalism principles to the practice of law.... I don't think there's necessarily a better system, sadly. Don't feel responsible to fix it all yourself. Anyway, pursue the technology as well as possible, by all means work in as many checks and balances as possible for correct use, and constant calibration, BUT ALSO talk and document openly during your design phase and testing the ideology you develop to govern false positives versus false negatives. This is an extremely engaging technology ethics discussion. If you drive the error to be false negatives, at a rate of 5%, will you not be able to sell it, because your customer is most interested in an effective tool? What is the societal benefit of getting this device to be accepted and used by the police? If you can achieve FN=4% is it worth it, or is the societal benefit actually much higher, possibly at FN =20%. Can you just run the test 5 times in a row, or with 2 stand alone devices to reach the dependability rate you desire? If you drive the error to be false positives, at a rate of 1%, can you sleep at night with the lives your product will effect, or do you need a fall back like your device determining with 100% accuracy that cannibus is present in someone's system (just not a definitive, exact amount), PLUS a statement from an arresting officer stating erratic or dangerous driving or behavior in conjunction with your device's input. I'm very excited about what you're doing. I didn't know (still not yet convinced) that the science is solvent, but I've been asking about this device for years.